Kerala High Court
Shuhaib vs Shaima on 8 October, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 1 2025:KER:74481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 230 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.313 OF 2015 OF FAMILY
COURT, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SHUHAIB, AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KARIM, SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 568.
2 SANOOJA, AGED 39 YEARS
D/O. ABDUL KHARIM, SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 568.
3 ABDHUL KHARIM, AGED 66 YEARS
SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O., PANAVOOR VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-695 568.
4 NUSAIFA BEEVI, AGED 61 YEARS
W/O. ABDUL KHARIM, SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 568.
BY ADV SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SHAIMA, AGED 25 YEARS
D/O. JUMAILA BEEVI, SHAIMA MANZIL, ILLAMBA P.O.,
ILLAMBA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 103.
BY ADV SMT.MAJIDA.S
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.9.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.304/2021, THE COURT ON
8.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 2 2025:KER:74481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
MAT.APPEAL NO. 304 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.313 OF 2015 OF FAMILY
COURT, NEDUMANGAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAIMA, AGED 26 YEARS
D/O. JUMAILA BEEVI, RESIDING AT SHAIMA MANZIL,
HAMBA, HAMBA VILLAGE.
BY ADV SMT.MAJIDA.S
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SHUAIB,
AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KARIM,
RESIDING AT SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.
2 SANOOJA,
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. ABDUL KARIM,
RESIDING AT SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 3 2025:KER:74481
3 ABDUL KHARIM,
AGED 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANU NIVAS,
PANAVOOR P.O., PANAVOOR VILLAGE,
NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.
4 NUSAIFA BEEVI,
AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. ABDUL KARIM,
RESIDING AT SANU NIVAS, PANAVOOR P.O.,
PANAVOOR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695568.
BY ADVS.
SMT.S.SOUMYA ISSAC
SRI.R.B.RAJESH
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
18.9.2025, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.230/2021, THE COURT ON
8.10.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 4 2025:KER:74481
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
Mat.Appeal Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
M.B.Snehalatha, J
Both these appeals have been preferred from the judgment
and decree in O.P.No.313/2015 of Family Court, Nedumangad, which
was a petition filed by the estranged wife against the husband and
in-laws seeking return of money in lieu of her gold ornaments and
patrimony. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court
allowed the petition in part.
2. Assailing the judgment and decree, the wife has
preferred Mat.A No.304/2021 and the husband and in-laws have
preferred Mat.A No.230/2021.
3. For easy reference, the parties shall be referred to
by their rank in the Original Petition.
4. Parties are Muslims. The marriage of the petitioner
and 1st respondent was solemnized on 28.08.2013. Respondents 3
and 4 are the parents of 1st respondent. 2nd respondent is his
sister. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 101 sovereigns
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 5 2025:KER:74481
of gold ornaments by her parents. On the date of engagement, an
amount of ₹5 lakhs and a Rado watch were given to the 1st
respondent. As demanded by the 1st respondent and his family, a
further sum of ₹5,50,000/- was also given to the 1 st respondent for
purchasing a Car. After the marriage, petitioner entrusted her entire
gold ornaments to the 1st respondent. 1st respondent subjected the
petitioner to cruelty and he deserted her on 11.9.2014. She claimed
the value of 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments misappropriated by
the respondents; ₹5 lakhs paid on the engagement date,
₹5,50,000/- paid for purchasing the car, the value of Rado watch
and also the air conditioner given to 1st respondent.
5. Though in the O.P she had also claimed
maintenance from the 1st respondent, the said claim was
subsequently given up by her.
6. In the counter statement, respondents denied the
entire allegations of the petitioner. They denied the case of the
petitioner that she was given 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments by
her parents; petitioner had only 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments
and the said gold ornaments were in her own custody and
possession. Neither any amount nor any Rado watch was given on
the engagement day, as alleged. No amounts were given to the 1st
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 6 2025:KER:74481
respondent for purchasing a car, as alleged. After the marriage,
petitioner used to pick up frequent quarrels over silly matters.
Though the petitioner conceived twice, it had to be aborted due to
complications in the pregnancy. Petitioner left the matrimonial home
on 15.9.2014 and while leaving the house, she had taken all her
belongings including gold and ornaments. Respondents are not
liable to return any amount as sought in the petition.
7. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family
Court allowed the petition in part. Except the claim for return of
₹5,50,000/-, all other claims of the petitioner/wife were declined.
The wife has preferred Mat.A No.304/2021 to the extent to which it
disallowed the reliefs sought by her.
8. The point for consideration in these appeals is
whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Family
Court needs any interference by this Court.
9. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of Pws
1 to 3 on the side of the petitioner and RW1 on the side of the
respondents and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A6 series, Exts.B1
to B5 and Exts. X1 and X2.
10. Admittedly, the marriage of the petitioner with the
1st respondent was solemnized on 28.8.2013 as per the ceremonies
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 7 2025:KER:74481
of Muslim community. It is an admitted case that due to marital
discord, the spouses fell apart.
11. Petitioner's case is that at the time of her marriage,
she was given 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. It
is also her case that at the time of fixing the marriage, an amount of
₹5 lakhs and a Rado watch were also given to the 1 st respondent. In
addition to that, an amount of ₹5,50,000/- was paid to him for
purchasing a new car. After the marriage, an air conditioner worth
₹25,500/- was also given.
12. According to the petitioner, who was examined as
PW1, after the marriage, she entrusted all her gold ornaments to the
1st respondent, who in turn kept the same in a locker maintained by
his sister at Syndicate Bank, Panavoor Branch. It is her case that
though the 1st respondent deserted her, respondents have not
returned the gold ornaments, patrimony and the amount given for
purchasing a car and the value of the Rado watch and air
conditioner.
13. Respondents in their counter statement have
denied the case of the petitioner that she had 101 sovereigns of gold
ornaments. According to them, at the time of marriage, petitioner
had only 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments and in addition to the said
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 8 2025:KER:74481
gold ornaments, she had worn imitation ornaments also on the
wedding day. It was further contended that after the marriage, all
the ornaments were kept by the petitioner herself and it was under
her lock and key.
14. In support of petitioner's case that at the time of
marriage, her parents had given 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments,
petitioner has produced Ext.A1 series wedding photos and Ext.A6
series bills. Ext.A6 series bills pertain to the purchase of 60.086
sovereigns of gold ornaments. Respondents have admitted in their
counter statement that at the time of marriage, petitioner was
wearing 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. At this juncture, it is
apposite to bear in mind that when Ext.A1 series wedding photos
were shown to the 1st respondent he feigned ignorance. When he
was cross examined further, he admitted his photo in wedding attire
and admitted that Ext.A1 is the photo of the petitioner. He has also
admitted that his sisters and relatives can be seen in the said
photos. He would admit that Ext.B5 photo produced by him was
taken on his wedding day. So it can be seen that he is a person who
deliberately denied his own wedding photographs to suit his case.
His conduct in denying Ext.A5 series wedding photos shows that he
is a person who would go to any extent to defeat the claim of the
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 9 2025:KER:74481
petitioner. We find no reason to suspect the genuineness of Exts.A1
series and Ext.B5 series wedding photographs. Though the
respondents would contend that petitioner's family had no financial
capacity to give her 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments, it is an
admitted case that the petitioner is the only daughter of her parents.
She has also testified that the sale consideration received by selling
a property belonging to her mother was used for purchasing gold
ornaments. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 that
her parents utilised the sale consideration which they received by
selling landed property for the purchase of gold ornaments.
15. 1st respondent has admitted that at the time of
marriage, she was wearing 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. But
his case is that apart from the said 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments,
she had also worn certain imitation gold ornaments on the wedding
day. The contention raised by the 1st respondent in his
counterstatement that even prior to the marriage, petitioner had told
him about her intention to wear imitation ornaments on her wedding
day is highly improbable and unbelievable.
16. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is
the only daughter of her parents and they had sufficient financial
capacity to give 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments to her at the time
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 10 2025:KER:74481
of her marriage. Though the petitioner could not establish that she
had brought 101 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the matrimonial
home, she could establish that she had 60 sovereigns of gold
ornaments.
17. The oral evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2
coupled with the documents marked as Ext.A6 series bill, Ext.A1
series and Ext.B5 series wedding photos stands established that at
the time of marriage, petitioner was given at least 60 sovereigns of
gold ornaments.
18. The case of the petitioner is that immediately on
the second day of her marriage, her entire gold ornaments were
entrusted with the 1st respondent husband. Further, it is pleaded in
paragraph 4 of the petition that the gold ornaments entrusted to the
1st respondent were quantified by all the respondents and they
decided to keep it in the locker maintained by the 2 nd respondent-
Sanooja, namely the sister of the 1st respondent, with the Syndicate
Bank, Panavoor Branch.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that there occurred a mistake in mentioning the name of sister of
the 1st respondent in whose locker the gold ornaments were kept by
the respondent. Actually, it was kept in the locker of sister named
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 11 2025:KER:74481
Sunija. But while drafting the petition, her name was mistakenly
shown as Sanooja.
20. According to the petitioner, she entrusted her
entire gold ornaments except the thali chain to her husband, namely
the 1st respondent. The case of the respondents is that at the time
when she left the matrimonial home on 15.9.2014, she took all her
gold ornaments with her.
21. The learned counsel for the petitioner took our
attention to Ext.A3 series medical records and pointed out that on
15.9.2014, she was admitted in 'Sree Avittam Thirunal Hospital,
Thiruvananthapuram' in connection with her pregnancy and abortion
and therefore, the case of the respondents that the petitioner left
the matrimonial home on 15.9.2014 with her gold ornaments, is
palpably false.
22. A perusal of the Ext.A3(c) series medical records
would show that the petitioner was admitted at Sree Avittam
Thirunal Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 11.9.2014 and she was
discharged on 4.10.2014. Respondents have no dispute over Ext.A3
series medical records including Ext.A3(c) and the contents therein.
Thus, the case of the petitioner that on 15.9.2014 she was
hospitalized stands established. Hence, the case projected by the
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 12 2025:KER:74481
respondents that the petitioner had taken all her gold ornaments at
the time when she left the matrimonial home on 15.9.2014 cannot
be believed.
23. It is also relevant to bear in mind that during cross-
examination of PW2 namely the father of the petitioner, the case
canvassed by the respondent was that the petitioner took away all
her belongings including gold on 11.9.2014 when she left the
matrimonial home, whereas in the counter their case is that she
took away her gold ornaments on 15.9.2014. Thus, respondent
have no consistent case as to when she took away her gold
ornaments from the matrimonial home.
24. The gold given to a bride at the time of marriage is
often kept by the husband or his family under the guise of
safekeeping of family customs. The woman rarely gets a written
record or receipt for such transfers and the woman's access to her
own ornaments can be restricted. When disputes arise, especially in
cases of domestic violence, dowry harassment or divorce, the
woman may claim that her gold ornaments have been misused or
never returned. However, since she seldom receives the list or
acknowledgment of the items given to her, proving entrustment
becomes difficult. Courts have to understand this practical difficulty
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 13 2025:KER:74481
and cannot insist on rigid legal proof as in criminal cases. The
inability to produce documentary evidence should not be a barrier to
justice, especially in cases where the social and familial norms make
such evidence hard to obtain. In such a situation, the courts have to
rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities to deliver
justice. The preponderance of probability refers to the greater
likelihood of one event or fact over another. It is not about certainty
or eliminating all doubts, but rather about weighing evidence to see
which side presents a more probable scenario. In civil cases, the
party bearing the burden of proof needs to show that their version of
events is more plausible than the opposite party. The Courts rely
on the preponderance of probability to ensure that the legal system
remains sensitive, fair and just. It upholds the principle that justice
is not about rigid formalities but about recognising truth in its real
context.
25. It is a settled position of law that the controversy in
most of the matrimonial cases has to be decided on the basis of oral
evidence. Rather than demanding strict legal proof, courts have to
rely on the principle of preponderance of probabilities in such cases.
26. In Pankajakshan Nair v. Shylaja and another
(2017(1)KHC 620) this Court held that when the husband and wife
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 14 2025:KER:74481
live together, it is only probable that the valuables of the wife will be
entrusted with the husband for safe custody and when the plea of the
husband is that wife took back the gold ornaments, it is for the
husband to prove the same.
27. Likewise, in Leelamma N.P v. M.A.Moni (2017 (3)
KHC 340), a Division Bench of this Court held that once it is proved
that gold ornaments and amount were entrusted by the wife to the
husband, then the burden is on the husband to prove as to what
happened to the gold ornaments. If the husband has a case that it
was taken by the wife when she left the matrimonial home, the
same has to be proved by the husband.
28. Though the petitioner could not establish the role of
respondents 2 to 4 in meddling with her gold ornaments, there is no
reason to disbelieve her case that the gold ornaments entrusted to
the 1st respondent were misappropriated by him and he has not
returned it. Petitioner has succeeded in establishing that her 60
sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted with the 1 st respondent
and he has not returned the same to her. Therefore, the 1 st
respondent is liable to return 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the
petitioner. Petitioner has not established her claim against
respondents 2 to 4.
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 15 2025:KER:74481
29. Having found as afore, we are aware that the
petitioner, in her Original Petition, has not sought for the return of
the gold in specie, but only its value, which is stated to be ₹25,000/-
per sovereign on the date of the petition, namely 24.03.2020. This
Court has declared in XXXv.XXX [2025(4) KLT 494] that the value of
gold to be returned should be as on the date of recovery, since
otherwise, it would cause unconscionable prejudice, keeping in mind
the huge escalation of value over the last ten years. The respondent
being liable to return 60 sovereigns of gold, we are of the opinion
that the same should be directed to be returned in specie, or
otherwise its value on the date of recovery.
30. Though the petitioner would contend that on the
date of engagement an amount of ₹5 lakhs was given, she failed to
produce any reliable evidence to prove the said payment. Hence, we
find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Family Court
declining the said relief. Likewise, her claim for return of Rado
watch and air conditioner is not supported by reliable evidence and
therefore we find no reason to interfere with the judgment and
decree of the Family Court declining the said claims.
31. Yet another claim made by the petitioner for return
of ₹5,50,000/-, which was paid by her father to the 1st respondent
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 16 2025:KER:74481
for purchasing a car.
32. Now, let us see whether the said finding of the
learned Family Court needs any interference by this Court. To
substantiate the petitioner's case that her father gave ₹5,50,000/-
to the 1st respondent, she caused production of Ext.X2, namely the
statement of account of the 1 st respondent. Ext.X2 would show that
on 1.8.2013 an amount of ₹5,50,000/- was credited in the account
of the 1st respondent. The marriage was on 28.8.2013
33. In Ext.A5, namely the reply sent by the 1st
respondent to the Juma ath he has admitted that petitioner's father
deposited an amount of ₹5,00,000/- in his account maintained by
him at Kerala Gramin Bank. Ext.A5 and Ext.X1 documents coupled
with Ext.X2 statement fortifies the version of the petitioner that prior
to the date of marriage, her father deposited an amount of
₹5,50,000/- into the account of the 1 st respondent for purchasing a
car as demanded by him and his family. Therefore, petitioner is
entitled to get back the said amount with interest from 1st
respondent, as rightly held by the Family Court and we find no
reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the learned
Family Court.
Mat.A Nos.304/2021 and 230/2021 17 2025:KER:74481
34. In the result, Mat.A No.230/2021 stands dismissed with
cost.
35. Mat.A No.304/2021 is allowed in part against the 1st
respondent as follows:
a) 1st respondent shall return 60
sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value as
on the date of return.
b) The judgment and decree of the
Family Court directing the 1st respondent to return
₹5,50,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of
the Original Petition till realisation stands confirmed.
c) The other claims sought by the petitioner
stand dismissed.
d) Petitioner is entitled to get proportionate
cost through out.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
ab
